A.Mirnalini v. The Superintend of Police (West)

ORDER This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2026.

¶2Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶3It is seen from the records that the petitioner's vendor filed a suit in O.S.No.137 of 1998 seeking a declaration in respect of the property comprised in Door No.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15, situated in Cadastre No.137/2, 138/2 and Re-survey No.114/18, at Mannadipet Commune, Thirukkanur Village, as against the respondents 3 and 4 herein. The said suit was decreed and the Judgment and Decree was also confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.251 of 2012 by Judgement and Decree dated 01.02.2019. The said Judgment was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶4Pending second appeal, the third respondent was directed to deposit the rent in respect of the subject property to the credit of the suit, since the third Page3 of 5 respondent executed lease deeds in favour of the tenants. Pursuant to the decree, the title to the property declared in favour of the petitioner's vendor. Thereafter, the petitioner's grandmother purchased the property from the petitioner's vendor and subsequently, settled the same in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶5Insofar as the six shops are concerned, the rents are being deposited to the credit of O.S.No.137 of 1998. Even till now, the fourth respondent, who is the tenant under the third respondent, is depositing the rent to the credit of O.S.No.137 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Puducherry.

¶6Therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the Trial Court for appropriate relief to collect the rents and also to initiate appropriate eviction proceedings against the fourth respondent, if so advised. Admittedly, the fourth respondent, who is the tenant in respect of the subject property, is in possession of the same.

¶7In view of the above, in order to take possession of the property and enjoying the same, the police protection cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Criminal) stands dismissed. No costs. 29-06-2026 Index: Yes/No LPP Page4 of 5 To

¶1The Superintend of Police (West) The Office of Superintend of Police West, Villianur Bypass Road, Villianur, Puducherry-605 110.

¶2The Inspector of Police Thirukkanur Police Station, Puducherry.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page5 of 5 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J. LPP WP Crl. No. 285 of 2026r 29-06-2026

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN WP Crl. No. 285 of 2026 A.Mirnalini ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Superintend of Police (West) The Office of Superintend of Police West, Villianur Bypass Road, Villianur, Puducherry- 605 110. 2. The Inspector of Police Thirukkanur Police Station, Puducherry. 3. T.Rajasekaran 4. M.Saravanan ..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated on 28.01.2026 and to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and property, and to enable her to enjoy decree by ensuring her peaceful entry and possession of the property situate at Mannadipet Commune, Thirukkanur Village in Door No. 9,10,11,12,13,14, and 15 in Cadastre No. 137/2, 138/2 and Re.Survey No. 114/18. Page2 of 5 For Petitioner: Mr.L.Albert Vinod for Mr.M.S.Akash Daniel For Respondents: Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthi Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) for R1 & R2 Mr.J.Rajmohan for R3 & R4